Advertisement

Archive for Friday, May 5, 2006

Rumsfeld hears more protesters during speech

May 5, 2006

Advertisement

— Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst, during a question-and-answer session.

"I did not lie," shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.

With Iraq war support remaining low, it is not unusual for top Bush administration officials to encounter protests and hostile questions. But the outbursts Rumsfeld confronted Thursday seemed beyond the usual.

Three protesters were escorted away by security as each interrupted Rumsfeld's speech by jumping up and shouting anti-war messages. Throughout the speech, a fourth protester stood in the middle of the room with his back to Rumsfeld in silent protest. Officials reported no arrests.

Rumsfeld has been interrupted by anti-war demonstrators in congressional hearing rooms as he has delivered testimony to lawmakers in recent months, and at some speeches across the country.

President Bush seldom faces such challenges. Demonstrators usually are kept far from him at public events.

Comments

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

You stand corrected with information from recent articles at CNN.

I don't make this stuff up. I merely report from what I like to call "The Real World".

You might want to book a visit sometime soon, Kevin.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

"So much for high morale in the George W. Bush military, Kevin."

I suppose morale would be higher if you and other moonbats in this country were not cheering the deaths of their comrades.

I suggest you go back and read about the morale issues during the 1990s. No serious person would argue that our military was elated with our civilian leadership.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

"Unfortunately, this was not the case, especially amongst the military."

=====

Report: Mentally ill troops forced into combat Military not following own rules on deployment, paper says

Saturday, May 13, 2006; Posted: 10:05 p.m. EDT (02:05 GMT)

"In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.

Twenty-two U.S. troops committed suicide in Iraq last year. That number accounts for nearly one in five of all noncombat deaths and was the highest suicide rate since the war started, the newspaper said.

The paper reported that some service members who committed suicide in 2004 or 2005 were kept on duty despite clear signs of mental distress, sometimes after being prescribed antidepressants with little or no mental health counseling or monitoring. Those findings conflict with regulations adopted last year by the Army that caution against the use of antidepressants for "extended deployments."

Although Defense Department standards for enlistment disqualify recruits who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, the military also is redeploying service members to Iraq who fit that criteria, the newspaper said."

---- http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/13/military.suicides.ap/index.html

=====

So much for high morale in the George W. Bush military, Kevin.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

Friday, May 12, 2006; Posted: 6:01 p.m. EDT (22:01 GMT)

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy.

----- http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

=====

Similar story at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/washington/10poll.html?_r=1&ex=1147579200&en=3721431f4c0c78e6&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

ben:

"...the confidence and morale of the nation up."

Unfortunately, this was not the case, especially amongst the military. Hitchens notes that after the Monica relevation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff summons Clinton to the Pentagon to tell him that he was losing the confidence of the troops. I don't believe that will ever happen with Bush. The troops were getting suspicious about being deployed whenever the Clinton scandals would heat up.

0

ben_ness 7 years, 11 months ago

I am not a huge fan of Bush, and I thought Clinton was a good president and at least charismatic and intelligent enough to keep the confidence and morale of the nation up. Hillary, however, makes my skin crawl.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

ben_ness:

Of course, there's always the possibility that Hillary will have her own Monica. (Sorry, Hitchens reminded me of Hillary inviting reporters in 1992 to find out if Bush 41 had his own Jennifer. Of course, she offered the invitation after she insisted that Clinton didn't have a Gennifer).

On the serious side, Hillary is probably the more corrupt of the two, although it's not clear if she was corrupt when she went to Arkansas or if she was corrupted by Arkansas politics. She was the one who brought Dick Morris on board. This is where I differ from the moonbats who now embrace everything David Brock says. He was sleazy when he was attacking the Clintons and he is sleazy now. Dick Morris was sleazy when he was working for the Clintons and he is sleazy now when he's on Fox News' payroll and has written two Clinton-bashing books. Even though he is attacking the Clintons today, I don't have any use for him.

0

ben_ness 7 years, 11 months ago

In a conversation with friends during dinner the other night a funny, but viable, point was brought up. If by some fluke Hillary is elected in '08, Bill Clinton will be the First Husband. Considering the mischief he was able to cause while also serving as the President of the United States, imagine what he will be able to do in the Whitehouse with so much extra time on his hands.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

Ben:

"I have seen that book a couple of times on the table at Barnes and Noble. I will have to peruse it next time. As for Hillary, she certainly DOES NOT have my vote in '08 - if she makes it that far."

It's a quick read. I certainly don't agree with everything Hitchen writes and he has definitely attacked those on the right (Henry Kissinger, Mother Theresa, et. al.), but his perspective from the left is refreshing (even though the book was written in 2000.)

Your choice, Warner, would make a lot more sense than Hillary, but I don't think the Democrats are smart enough (or strong enough) to stop Hillary. The question then becomes are the Republicans smart enough and strong enough to stop her.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius, there is no doubt the American public will never fully know the depth and breadth of the Clintons' corruption. People are in denial if they don't believe this.

And it seems now the Democratic Party is steering away from Mrs. Clinton (see how respectful I can be). If she does run and she will, the deluge of questions about her past (and present) that will be poured on her and the negativity surrounding her will be too much. Add to that Rudy, there is no way we will see her as president.

Now, what other Dem gets nominated could possible pick her as veep. The question is will she take the offer then have one of her Arkansas buddies set up to have the president whacked. I would not put her above something like this at all.

0

ben_ness 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

I have seen that book a couple of times on the table at Barnes and Noble. I will have to peruse it next time. As for Hillary, she certainly DOES NOT have my vote in '08 - if she makes it that far.

Thanks for being nice.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

ben:

"Arminius - Clinton, lie? Don't forget that he "didn't have sexual relations with that woman"

I'm not interested in going there. That certainly was not the worst of Clinton's sins.

"Clinton was a better President than Bush will ever...."

I have to disagree with you there. I finally got around to reading Christopher Hitchens' "No One Left To Lie To" over the weekend, and it was really a refresher course on just how corrupt the Clintons are (and were). I had forgotten that protesters on the Left (and Hitchens is on the Left) were also calling for Clinton's impeachment in December 1998, but for "the right reasons." I can't understand why holygrailails, observer, et. al. are so reluctant to face the truth about Clinton. Look how often he jettisoned liberal causes when they conflicted with his own interests.

If Hillary is nominated in 2008, she'll find opposition from both the right and the left. I think the only moonbat blogger supporting Hillary is BartCop. However, after my encounter with him and his fans this week, I've concluded that they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

0

ben_ness 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailale -

Thanks for the laughs!

Arminius - Clinton, lie? Don't forget that he "didn't have sexual relations with that woman"

Clinton was a better President than Bush will ever be but that doesn't mean he wasn't averse to lying, or better yet, bending the truth. Considering that he admitted to lying in a round about way, doesn't this mean he could have just as easily lied about WMD in Iraq? Just curious.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

observer:

"tempting to lie to him to get him to go away, but again he would lie and come back."

Why would answering "yes" be a lie? If, as the moonbats claim, it was a lie to say Iraq had WMD, then Bill Clinton lied.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Actually, how about Edith Keeler vs Tasha Yar????

In jello.

=====

Or the android "Andrea" vs Beverly Crusher

in a white wine sauce with shallots...

HAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHHAHHAA

=====

Badger is right (as usual). The possibilities are endless.

0

frankzappa 7 years, 11 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

observer 7 years, 11 months ago

no, Kevin walks a tight rope to avoid out right lying. Innuendo, mis-quote, selective quoting, out of context quotes, etc. you're right, no out right lies. just total obsessive Clinton hatred and W worshipping.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

At the certain risk of being called an idiot, I have never read a post by Arminius which is a flat out lie. Have read volumes from various libs that are, well, I'll be nice and call them "speculation". But, hey, I could've missed something. I have never indulged Arminius' other forums that have been discussed.

0

observer 7 years, 11 months ago

tempting to lie to him to get him to go away, but again he would lie and come back.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

by Arminius:

holygrailails:

"Did Bill Clinton and his national security principals lie when they said as late as January 2001 that Saddam had WMD, Iraq was a threat to the U.S., and Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

Tell you what. I'll extend the offer until midnight tonight. One word and I'm gone for good."

I'm glad you'll be sticking around, Arminius. We know what the answer is to your question.

0

observer 7 years, 11 months ago

Kevin, some day hopefully you'll give up your fanatical hatred of Clinton. Some day you will stop blaming all of W's incompetence on Clinton. That I realize is just some wild pipe dream of mine. Blame it on consuming too many Lone Star long necks. I firmly believe the only thing wrong with Texas is the dumb a$$ Texans like Bush. That's why I never go there unless forced to for business reasons.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

ben_ness:

Say "yes" and disagree with Scott McClellen???

How could you suggest such a thing??

=====

You know how I feel about Scott McClellen.

=====

I know he'll come back to me.

He just needs some time to figure out what he wants.

=====

He wants me, I know he does.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

I was always interested in GeneviÃve Bujold as Captain.

What a hottie!!!

Would she have been the best captain???

Who cares??

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

I have short term memory loss and have to write things down.

I have short term memory loss and have to write things down.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

Moratorium? Heck, I gave you an opportunity to get rid of me on this forum permanently. All you had to do was answer this question with an unqualified "yes":

Did Bill Clinton and his national security principals lie when they said as late as January 2001 that Saddam had WMD, Iraq was a threat to the U.S., and Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

Tell you what. I'll extend the offer until midnight tonight. One word and I'm gone for good.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

crazyks:

You're right.

It bothers me that we are hogging the thread.

=====

I know what Kevin will say before he says it because he forgets that he has presented these positions before and been corrected.

Maybe Kevin's seeking attention, maybe he has short term memory loss.

=====

Maybe Kevin believes that if he bleats the same arguments over and over again then someone, solely through the power of repetition, will be persuaded that Bill Clinton is the cause of all evil in the George W. Bush administration, ne the World.

=====

I really respect Badger's opinion. If Badger says that a moratorium is in order, that's good enough for me.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

It gets down to (twixed Arminius and Holygrail) what time did W say something, was it at 9:59 am, before a report was released at 2:01 pm that day. Funny.

Hey, at least they're passionate about something, if not even each other. Just kidding you guys, don't get it twisted.

0

Linda Endicott 7 years, 11 months ago

I usually don't even read through all their posts anymore. I just get tired of the same old arguments all the time, over and over and over and over...

Your description of the Trekkies was hilarious, Badger. Next time you find a group of them, throw in the name "Janeway" and see what happens...

You might have to bring something more substantial than popcorn to munch on.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

There's a lot of projection in your latest.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

You're so starved for attention that someone who posts

"It's like a Bizarro bartcop.com"

about your website is good news for you.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAH

How does it feel to be "bizarro"???

HAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAAHAAH

Like I said, Kevin, you're fringe.

You're much closer to Fred Phelps than you are to the average Republican.

0

badger 7 years, 11 months ago

Taken the time?

Hell, I took popcorn!

It's hysterically funny. I highly recommend it. It's not hard in any college town to find a group of Trekkies. Wait for a lull in conversation, and say, "So which one was the 'real' captain of the ship? Kirk or Picard?"

Then just sit back and watch the carnage. They'll pull out episode numbers and statistics and quotes, and bring up Starfleet regulations and stardates, and after about half an hour, one of them or their friends will start yelling in Klingon.

Alternatively, find a gaming convention and ask, "So which version of AD&D works best for rogue classes?" and listen to the following hour of hair-tearing conflict over each DM's personal modifications and his own special 'Edition 3.5.1.1' as opposed to someone else's 'Edition 3.725' version, with the special twist he's added to the critical success on the backstab skill, and how the other guy is just a module-running hack who wouldn't know a d4 if he stepped on it like a caltrop.

Part of being a happy geek is knowing that other geeks are funny.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Bush approval rating hits new low Updated 5/8/2006 1:42 PM ET By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - President Bush's approval rating has slumped to 31% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, the lowest of his presidency and a warning sign for Republicans in the November elections.

The survey of 1,013 adults, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush's standing down by 3 percentage points in a single week. His disapproval rating also reached a record: 65%. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Bush's fall is being fueled by erosion among support from conservatives and Republicans. In the poll, 52% of conservatives and 68% of Republicans approved of the job he is doing. Both are record lows among those groups.

Moderates gave him an approval rating of 28%, liberals of 7%.

"You hear people say he has a hard core that will never desert him, and that has been the case for most of the administration," says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin who studies presidential approval ratings. "But for the last few months, we started to see that hard core seriously erode in support."

Only four presidents have scored lower approval ratings since the Gallup Poll began regularly measuring it in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

Badger is quite correct.

You argue points over and over again after you've been corrected.

I look a little silly repeating arguments that have gotten you so mad that you offer to see me "face to face", pout for three days, and ask for "do overs" on another subject.

For instance: We've already covered how the intelligence was wrong in Iraq but you want to blame the war George W. Bush started on Bill Clinton.

We've already gone over whether or not the uncaptured Usama Bin Ladin began his endeavors against America during the George H W Bush presidency or the Bill Clinton presidency but you want to raise that issue again.

Apart from threats, I can see why you got kicked off of Larryville. You take over threads for your own propaganda, propaganda that is in error.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

rightthinker:

Oh gosh no! I married another conservative. I couldn't live under the same roof as a moonbat.

Holygrailails tries, God bless her. However, as with the case of the question above she refuses to answer, she'll go to great lengths to avoid facing the truth.

She has a little more knowledge than the average moonbats. For example, bartcop.com linked to www.retroactiveimpeachment.com today. You should see the stuff I'm getting from his moonbats. I had one call me an idiot and then said that Clinton destroyed all of Saddam's WMD during Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Hilarious. Not too sharp, these moonbats.

BTW, Bart was courteous enough to let me know on Friday that he was going to link to my site. I had to put together s special welcome page for his fans. I Photoshopped a couple things so his fans could ease themselves into the site before getting into the factual material. I got bored doing that after just a couple of minutes. I guess it's like an adult trying to color for awhile. I don't know how a 52-year-old man like Bart can do that childish stuff day after day.

badger:

"It's like watching uniformed Kirk Trekkies argue with uniformed Picard Trekkies...."

Wait a minute. You've actually taken the time to watch Trekkies argue? And you have the nerve to say others here look a little ridiculous.

0

badger 7 years, 11 months ago

Married or not, they're funny as heck.

It's like watching uniformed Kirk Trekkies argue with uniformed Picard Trekkies, when these two end up taking over a thread. Nothing of substance gets said, they spend a lot of time going over things they've already argued into inanity, there's a lot of invective and spittle, and they both look a little ridiculous.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius and Holygrail, the Carville and Matalin of Lawrence. You sure you guys aren't marrried, one upstairs, one down, tickety-ticking away on the keyboard then at the end of the day, a nice romantic dinner and...........???

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

"All I have to do is point out how you are off topic, disingenuous, outright lying and wrong for you to ad hominem and ask for "do overs", most of the time on news that's almost a decade old and debunked for years."

You know, if I thought someone was being disingenuous, lying, and engaging in ad hominem attacks, I really wouldn't want them on this forum.

If you truly believe all of that about me, you can get rid of me for good simply by answering this question with an unqualified "yes":

Did Bill Clinton and his national security principals lie when they said as late as January 2001 that Saddam had WMD, Iraq was a threat to the U.S., and Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

This should be easy to answer. Both Bush and Clinton said the same thing about Saddam's WMD (Clinton actually went one step further in 1998 by claiming al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating on weapons development). If Bush lied, Clinton also lied. It's that simple.

The article associated with this thread concerns a moonbat who said it was a lie to say Iraq had WMD, so my question is relevant to the thread and does not constitute what you claim is a "do over."

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

You STILL don't get it.

You're entertainment.

You're an exercise in typing and composition, not some paragon of political expertise that I'm gaining knowledge from.

=====

All I have to do is point out how you are off topic, disingenuous, outright lying and wrong for you to ad hominem and ask for "do overs", most of the time on news that's almost a decade old and debunked for years.

=====

You're fun. In a blowup punching-bag doll sorta way.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

Come on, holygrailails. It was a "yes" or "no" question.

Here are the Clinton administration press releases: http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html

And here are a few statements made during 2002 and 2003:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Former Vice President Al Gore (9/23/02)

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Former Vice President Al Gore (9/23/02)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (10/10/02)

"But Saddam Hussein, for 12 years, has defied the will of the United Nations and we contained him effectively, but I think it's fair to say that after what happened on September the 11th the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution which said, clearly, that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. It can be your removal from office." - Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (2/9/03)

"So, I -- my position all along has been one Senator Dole and I took here together on your show that we ought to let the U.N. do its work and I still believe that. But I think the fact that Colin Powell demonstrated persuasively that they're moving the weapons, or the weapon stocks in this case, which -- and it would be easier to move the much smaller quantities of anthrax or aphrotoxin or they may have a little smallpox. But we're pretty sure they've got a botulism and the chemical agents, VX and ricin." - Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (2/9/03)

"In 1998, when we and the British bombed for four days when we kicked the inspectors out, we degraded their capacity further, but there's no question they've had some time to rebuild. "Now based on the declarations they made in '99 and the estimates that were there in '91 at the end of the Gulf War, it's clear that the inspections destroyed more stuff than was destroyed in the Gulf War. but it's pretty clear there are still some things, substantial amounts of chemical and biological stocks unaccounted for." - Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (2/9/03)


Did Bill Clinton and his national security principals lie when they said as late as January 2001 that Saddam had WMD, Iraq was a threat to the U.S., and Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

An unqualified "yes" results in me saying goodbye to this forum.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

You are kidding yourself. Since when is asking for "do overs" demonstrating mercy??

More evidence that you live in a dreamworld of your own creation.

=====

If you want to stop posting on the LJ World blogs, Kevin, don't let the door hit you in the a$$.

I don't care.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

"In your post of May 6, 2006 at 10:36 a.m, you attempt to suggest that British Intelligence, US Senate Intelligence Committee and Joe Wilson felt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction / yellowcake uranium / whatever."

British intelligence, the US Senate Intelligence Committee, and Joe Wilson, like Bush, all believed prior to the invasion that Iraq did indeed have WMD.

"When I pointed out the multiple errors in your post, you change the topic to whether or not George W. Bush KNEW he was lying in the 2003 State of the Union Address.

"Who the f**k cares????"

A mistake is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Clinton kept sanctions on Iraq for years after Duelfer said he believes it is likely Saddam destroyed his WMD. As a result of those sanctions, 500,000+ Iraqi children died. Let's say that in November 1998 UNSCOM determined that Saddam destroyed his WMD immediately after the first Gulf War. Instead of impeaching Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment case, would you have supported the impeachment of Clinton in December 1998 for the deaths that resulted from his mistaken belief that Iraq had WMD?

"If you were kicking my ass so much, you wouldn't have to change subjects or ad hominem so much."

Actually, I was attempting to show you some mercy. If you had answer that question with an unqualified "yes" (which, of course, is the only way you could answer it honestly), I would no longer be here to expose your lies and hypocrisy.

I'll give you another chance to answer the question. The offer expires at midnight:

Did Bill Clinton and his national security principals lie when they said as late as January 2001 that Saddam had WMD, Iraq was a threat to the U.S., and Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

Scott McClellen answered your question regarding prewar intelligence in a news conference awhile back.

I've already posted that but with all the miswiring in your brain, you probably forgot it.

======

Didn't take you long to change the subject to Bill Clinton and advertise your website, did it Kevin.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHH

When in doubt and with your back against the wall, blame Clinton.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

You (deliberately) miss the point, as usual.

=====

George W. Bush was wrong in the State of the Union address in 2003 regarding Saddam Hussein.

2400 American soldiers are dead and thousands wounded because of that error.

To that multitude, it doesn't matter if the error was deliberate or not.

=====

Starting an illegal and undeclared war based upon faulty information whose validity was known to have been questioned one year before the speech itself is grounds for impeachment in my book.

Starting illegal wars is "out of control" behavior. I don't want an out of control ex-alcoholic with his hand on the button.

=====

Your disingenuity occurs from post to post.

In your post of May 6, 2006 at 10:36 a.m, you attempt to suggest that British Intelligence, US Senate Intelligence Committee and Joe Wilson felt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction / yellowcake uranium / whatever.

You weren't talking about whether or not George W. Bush was deliberately or not deliberatly lying about weapons of mass destruction at that point.

You were attempting to reinstate what has been known to be untrue for over two years now.

=====

When I pointed out the multiple errors in your post, you change the topic to whether or not George W. Bush KNEW he was lying in the 2003 State of the Union Address.

Who the f**k cares????

======

George W. Bush was wrong.

The war is a mistake.

The war is illegal.

Soldiers are dying for a f**kup.

=====

You're so much of a TRUE BELIEVER that the maintenance of whatever paleocon fantasy that resides in your head is more important than the lives of the young men and women dying for what they think is their duty.

=====

If you were kicking my ass so much, you wouldn't have to change subjects or ad hominem so much.

That behavior only reveals anger and irresponsibility.

Winners are seldom angry. They are triumphant.

HAAHAHAAHAAHAHHA

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

My bad.

The Swift Boat Veterans supporter ad defending Tom DeLay article is actually this one:

http://factcheck.org/article377.html

I stand corrected.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

"Kevin makes it appear as if George W. Bush was correct in his statements that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but the focus of the article is whether or not George W. Bush was deliberately stating untruths during his 2003 State of the Union Address."

Instead of admitting your were wrong about the 2003 SOTU, all you can offer is a bogus claim that I was being disingenuous? You're nuttier than squirrel poop.

You stated that Bush should be impeached over his 2003 SOTU. You can't impeach a president for being wrong. FactCheck.org concluded, correctly, that Bush did not lie.

Tell you what, holygrailails. You come here day after day and have your lunch eaten. I'm going to give you an opportunity to spew your lies without a challenge from me.

All you have to do is answer the following question with an unqualified "yes" and I'll stop posting here.

Did Bill Clinton and his national security principals lie when they said as late as January 2001 that Saddam had WMD, Iraq was a threat to the U.S., and Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

Kevin, I have no problem with readers going to

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html (Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying)

======

Let me point out the disingenuity of Kevin's post.

Kevin makes it appear as if George W. Bush was correct in his statements that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but the focus of the article is whether or not George W. Bush was deliberately stating untruths during his 2003 State of the Union Address.

The truth of the absence of weapons of mass destruction is uncontroversial in the article. The reader is left with the knowledge that they weren't there.

HAHHAHAHAAHAHAH

======

Here's another good FactCheck.org webpage:

http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html (Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?)

and another:

http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html (Anti-war Ad Says Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rice "Lied" About Iraq)

and another:

http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html (Swift Boat Veterans Anti-Kerry Ad: "He Betrayed Us" With 1971 Anti-War Testimony)

and another:

http://www.factcheck.org/article365.html (A Tortured History)

and another:

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html (Swiftly Defending DeLay)

======

Actually, FactCheck.org is a pretty cool site.

Thanks Kevin.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

"I find it hilarious that you would seek reinforcement from college professors instead of referring to the investigation reports that I have cited TIME AND TIME AGAIN."

If you were capable of reading, you would know FactCheck.org cited both British and American reports and concluded that Bush did not lie in the 2003 SOTU.

You can either admit that you're wrong about the SOTU, or continue lying and citing the discredited Joe Wilson (i.e., continuing to make an ass out of yourself).

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

I apologize for one of my earlier comments.

It's now clear that the college professors at the University of Pennsylvannia have nothing to do with FactCheck.org.

I stand corrected.

HAAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

How come FactCheck.org is based in Washington D.C. and not in Philadelphia Pennsylvania???

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

=======

Here's a disclaimer from the website:

"Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center"

HAAHAHAHAHHHAH

======

Is this like that IP-only website on the Cox network in Washington DC that you said had super-secret information about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, information that had similar disclaimers as well???

HAAHAHAHAHAHAH

======

Kevin, you keep out-doing yourself.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

I find it hilarious that you would seek reinforcement from college professors instead of referring to the investigation reports that I have cited TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

======

A paleocon such as yourself aligning himself with liberal college professors.........

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

======

Tell me, did the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania send college students to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction????

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

======

Tell me, did the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania go to Niger to learn something Joe Wilson couldn't????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

======

Is the CIA reaching out the graduate students at the University of Pennsylvannia to contradict investigations by the United Nations, the Defense Department and the United States Senate.

HAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

Damn, you're fun.

=====

Instead of the BS that Kevin is shoveling, the LJ World reader is directed to read Joe Wilson's book on the subject,

"The Politics of Truth"

and

(the column that started it all)

"What I didn't find in Africa"

posted here: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm.

=======

PS You can read Joe Wilson's column on the New York Times website but you will have to pay $3.95 to read it here: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D12F7355E0C758CDDAE0894DB404482.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

That's the difference between you and me.

I don't have to have any of my information filtered.

Generally, I quote directly from original sources.

======

For instance, in the past, I have quoted from George W. Bush's State of the Union address of 2003.

You have not.

======

No one tells me what to think. I take no lead from FOX, or the American Enterprise Institute. I go to no left wing website to learn what to think.

======

You can read the full text of the 2003 State of the Union Address on either of these two pages unfiltered.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

or

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/

=====

I'm sure that the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania could tell you how many times "Usama Bin Ladin" is mentioned in the 2003 State of the Union Address.

(zero)

======

I'm sure that the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania could tell you how many times "Saddam Hussein" is mentioned in the 2003 State of the Union Address.

(nineteen times)

======

For a guy who organized 19 men to fly airplanes into buildings and kill 3000 Americans on 9/11, Usama Bin Ladin seems to be far away from George W. Bush's thoughts.

======

Oh wait.

I forgot.

Six months after 9/11, George W. Bush "didn't spend that much time on Bin Ladin".

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

Polls seem to have more effect on liberals' thinking than facts.....not like that's a surprise; just a reminder.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

This is yet another case in which you should admit that you have been corrected. FactCheck.org debunked your false claim about Bush's 2003 SOTU address.

p>FactCheck.org is not a right-wing operation--it "is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels."

Repeating moonbat propaganda regarding the 2003 SOTU when that propaganda has been thoroughly debunked constitutes a lie on your part. http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

It doesn't matter how much hype you reference. It has all been debunked and debunked for years now.

Right now, Bush is having to defend whether or not his lies were deliberate lies.

Why you keep bringing up stuff that no one believes anymore and expect it to function as "truth" only demonstrates that you haven't let go of falsehood.

Sad.

Especially coming from a "journalist" who should know better.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

"In fact, it's a miracle that George W. Bush hasn't been impeached for the load of horse manure he presented in his 2003 State of the Union Address."

If you're referring to the 16 words about uranium from Africa, here is what FactCheck.org has to say:

  • A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush's 16 words "well founded."

  • A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from "a number of intelligence reports," a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

  • Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush's 16 words a "lie", supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .

  • Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.


Once again, holygrailails--and not Bush--has been exposed as a moonbat manure shoveler.

0

shanefivedyes 7 years, 11 months ago

Put me down for misspelling surroundings... although I am still concerned about Holygrailale.

0

shanefivedyes 7 years, 11 months ago

Holygrailale, Just a warning, Xenophonschild is trying to get in your pants(He thinks your a girl) Please be aware of your surrondings. Just a warning!!!

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Pilgrim:

Since the Congressional resolution you refer to was made based upon false and now debunked information, I would say that a similar resolution would not pass at this point.

The only point that you are making is that, if the lie is good enough, then anything can be made "legal".

=====

By the way, the United States has jurisdiction over activities only within it's own borders.

What happens outside of the United States is legal or not legal according to the laws of whatever country you happen to be in.

I'm sure you knew that. At some point in your life.....

=====

In fact, it's a miracle that George W. Bush hasn't been impeached for the load of horse manure he presented in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

=====

The United Nations, which was behind the behavior of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton vis-a-vis Iraq, is not supportive of the current war and has declared it "illegal".

=====

Thanks for confirming my suspicions that you felt that segregation should have been left alone in the Sixties, that middle aged black women should give up their seats on buses, that a mother should not protest when her son loses his life during an undeclared and illegal war.

=======

Speaking of "illegal" wars, have you learned why the US-Iraq War is undeclared???

Answer: If you declare war, then you must adhere to the International Rules of War, Geneva Convention, etc, etc.

If you don't "play by the rules", then you are subject to war crimes tribunals, which (unfortunately) aren't held in the United States Congress.

=====

The submission that "We declared our actions legal" don't fly very far when International Tribunals ask you why you invaded a country that wasn't involved with 9/11, Al Qaida, or weapons of mass destruction.

=====

The International Community also doesn't like knowing that you are torturing people from another land in their country.

They're funny like that.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 11 months ago

Posted by holygrailale (anonymous) on May 5, 2006 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pilgrim:

You agreed with Arminius that equating Cindy Sheehan protesting the war with Rosa Parks protesting discrimination was "ridiculous" and "insulting".

=====

I admit that I assumed that you felt that Rosa Parks' action was admirable and that Cindy Sheehan's was not.


Exactly. Equating the two is an insult to the memory of Rosa Parks.


Since you don't need the history lesson, I'm sure that you also picked up on the allusion that most of the "State's Rights" proponents were conservatives.


Conservative, perhaps, but conservative Demorats. Al Gore Sr. among them. And wasn't George Wallace a Demorat? And Lester Maddox? Heck, by today's looney left standards, John Kennedy was a conservative.


The US-Iraq War is illegal, undeclared and has no basis.


Oh darn, there's that pesky Congressional resolution that passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses to make that statement absolutely false. But maybe if you click the heels of your ruby slippers together three times you can make it come true.


The disingenuous aspect is a conservative referring to a famous minority "person of conscience" as an example of "proper protest", when it is highly probable that you would have spoken out against Rosa Parks at the time she actually protested.


Pure speculation. What is not speculation is, as I said, Cindy Sheehan couldn't carry Rosa Parks' handbag to the front of the bus. Regardless of what you believe I really think of Rosa Parks, she is leaps and bounds ahead of Sheehan. If you believe I think very little of Rosa Parks, that will give you some idea of where that puts Sheehan.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

xenophonschild:

Haven't you noticed that Kevin knows more than almost anyone???

=====

George Lincoln Rockwell knew more but he's dead now.

=====

So's Lee Atwater.

=====

And Joseph McCarthy.

=====

Kevin might know more than Karl Rove.

I'd say it's a tie.

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 11 months ago

Holygrailale:

Kevin, (Arminius, whatever he calls himself) is a liar. He consistently maintains that the Clinton Administration is responsbile for Osama bin Laden having a free hand to plan and finance the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the near-destruction of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000, and the devastation of 9/11.

But he fails to include in his rants - from his own sources - that Clinton Administration officials struggled to find a way to arrest OBL in Sudan and have him placed in custody in Saudi Arabia.

And - this is the point he so conveniently ignores - "unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Ladan, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton Administration finally gave up on the capture." (Int. Herald-Tribune, 10-4-01).

Arminius is a liar. I know something of lying, having done it a number of times in open court, in front of judges, juries, and the assembled public. But to lie on a newspaper website, to a group of strangers, and for debating points - is nothing short of contemptible.

Kevin needs to apologize, rein in his irrational hatred of William the Great, and promise to vote for Hillary in '08.

0

observer 7 years, 11 months ago

Kevin, will you ever give up and get some help for your obsessive hatred of Clinton?

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

HOLYGRAILAILS:

None of what you posted answers my question:

If McGovern truly believes it was a lie to say Iraq had WMD, didn't he have an obligation to say so before 2004? The Clinton administration claimed for eight years that Saddam had WMD and allowed 500,000+ Iraqi children to die when continuing sanctions placed Iraq because Clinton said it had not yet disarmed.

"Your question also implies that the US-Iraq War was/is a mistake."

There's that reading comprehension problem again. The question dealt with McGovern's perspective, not mine. If it was a lie to say Iraq had WMD, then Clinton lied. Why didn't McGovern resign from the CIA and expose the lie then?

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

I supplied references to documents from the United States Government and the United Nations that conclude that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction before the US-Iraq War.

=====

Secretary Rumsfeld was lying when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary Rumsfeld was being disingenuous in using that reason to help initiate and continue an illegal and undeclared war.

=====

Mr. McGovern had the right to ask the Secretary of Defense why we are fighting in an illegal and undeclared war, a war whose basis was/is false.

Mr. McGovern's position as a former CIA analyst gives him perspective that you don't have re: knowledge in the intelligence community prewar. That perspective adds considerable weight to his criticism.

It is a very appropriate question, given that >2400 US Soldiers have died based upon that answer.

=====

Your question implies that, if a conservative Republican starts an illegal, undeclared and baseless war, then it's the fault of a former CIA analyst for not stopping him.

I think history has demonstrated that there were many voices urging restraint before going to war and they were ignored.

Your question also implies that the US-Iraq War was/is a mistake.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Pilgrim:

You agreed with Arminius that equating Cindy Sheehan protesting the war with Rosa Parks protesting discrimination was "ridiculous" and "insulting".

=====

I admit that I assumed that you felt that Rosa Parks' action was admirable and that Cindy Sheehan's was not.

Now I'm not sure.

Maybe you feel that Cindy Sheehan's protest against the illegal and undeclared Iraq War is admirable and Rosa Park's protest against discrimination was ridiculous.

=====

Since you don't need the history lesson, I'm sure that you also picked up on the allusion that most of the "State's Rights" proponents were conservatives.

Hence the strangeness of having a paleocon celebrating the actions of a minority protesting against discrimination.

=====

The subject on point is protest against an incompetent Secretary of Defense. The US-Iraq War is illegal, undeclared and has no basis.

Paleocons are attempting to quash protest against said war by declaring criticism un-American, anti-war, anti-Bush, impolite, ignorant, misguided, moonbat, etc, etc.

The disingenuous aspect is a conservative referring to a famous minority "person of conscience" as an example of "proper protest", when it is highly probable that you would have spoken out against Rosa Parks at the time she actually protested.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

holygrailails:

None of what you posted answers my question:

If McGovern truly believes it was a lie to say Iraq had WMD, didn't he have an obligation to say so before 2004? The Clinton administration claimed for eight years that Saddam had WMD and allowed 500,000+ Iraqi children to die when continuing sanctions placed Iraq because Clinton said it had not yet disarmed.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 11 months ago

Posted by holygrailale (anonymous) on May 5, 2006 at 5:11 p.m.

I'm sorry that you didn't pick up on the reference to "State's Rights".

"State's Rights" was the rallying cry of communities fighting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the Sixties. See "George Wallace".

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever"

=====

In other words, it was proposed that States had the right to be discriminatory towards minorities if they so chose. It was a "State Right" to segregate.

The Federal Government declared that States could not be discriminatory towards minorities.


I did pick up on it, and I didn't need the history lesson.

Now, what does this have to do with the fact that the Secretary of Defense stood up to a misguided accuser in a public forum?

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Pilgrim:

No, I'm not saying that McGovern was a plant.

Rumsfeld has a habit of asking a question and then answering it himself during press conferences.

It's a strange quirk. When it was pointed out to me, I started watching for it and I noticed it was true.

He doesn't do it all of the time but he does it enough that it's noticeable.

=====

I'm sorry that you didn't pick up on the reference to "State's Rights".

"State's Rights" was the rallying cry of communities fighting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the Sixties. See "George Wallace".

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever"

=====

In other words, it was proposed that States had the right to be discriminatory towards minorities if they so chose. It was a "State Right" to segregate.

The Federal Government declared that States could not be discriminatory towards minorities.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 11 months ago

Posted by holygrailale (anonymous) on May 5, 2006 at 12:49 p.m.

"Rumsfield answers no questions but his own.

He supplies his own question and then answers it."


So you're saying McGovern was a plant? That the question about lies was a Rumsfeld question? Does McGovern know that?


"I find it beyond bizarre that a paleocon, such as yourself, would come out recognizing the actions of Rosa Parks.

"State's Rights" (and all that implies) is much closer to my picture of your political leanings.


Rosa Parks' actions were strictly local in nature. She didn't refuse to give up her seat on a DC bus headed for the Capitol. So how are her actions and states' rights at odds?

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

RightThinker:

The only thing I know about the derogative "moonbat" is that it's what Kevin Groenhagen (Arminius) starts calling people who provide direct quotes from original sources that demonstrate he is in error.

You took up the practice in emulation.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

Holygrail, so a paleocon is sort of like a moonbat?

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

I'm sorry......I just had to let this fly....

"Citing Loretta Lynn and the Virgin Mary as successful women who married young, Sen. Kay O'Connor voted against a bill that would prohibit 14-year-olds from marrying."

----- http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/04/despite_senators_efforts_juvenile_marriage_ban_adv/?kansas_legislature

HAHAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

RightThinker:

To the best of my knowledge, the term "paleocon" was coined by Fred Barnes, publisher of The Weekly Standard.

It refers to a conservative who is beyond partisan, loyal in the face of uncontroversial evidence to the contrary of any position "conservative".

Beyond "neo-con".

There's being loyal and then there's stupid.

"Paleocon" is stupid, follow-you-over-the-cliff stupid.

=====

Fred Barnes is a regular on The McLaughlin Group, one of my favorite shows.

I'll let the reader learn of Mr. Barnes' political leanings.

It will enhance the irony.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

Paleocon....what a funny word. How many ways can a person be termed "liberal" .....probably no less than ten I'm just guessing. Holygrail, gotta say, you bring alot to this forum with your sarcasm and humor; even for a liberal.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Pilgrim:

I find it beyond bizarre that a paleocon, such as yourself, would come out recognizing the actions of Rosa Parks.

"State's Rights" (and all that implies) is much closer to my picture of your political leanings.

======

Kinda like reading posts from Kevin referring to Nixon as a non-conservative.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Pilgrim:

Rumsfield answers no questions but his own.

He supplies his own question and then answers it.

You haven't noticed this behavior??? It's weird.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

RightThinker:

I wonder if George McGovern would have had to resign in disgrace rather than get kicked out of office.

Isn't it interesting that history has demonstated that the things that George McGovern stood for turned out to be the correct things to stand for??? Namely, getting out of Vietnam???

But paleocons aren't into history....requires reading and objectivity.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 11 months ago

Posted by mefirst (anonymous) on May 5, 2006 at 8:41 a.m.

Bush/Rumsfeld HATE democracy.


Yup. That's why the Secretary shooed security away and answered the guy's questions.

You're almost as funny as Colbert.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 11 months ago

Posted by Arminius (anonymous) on May 5, 2006 at 9:36 a.m.

McGovern also called Cindy Sheehan the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement. That's as insulting as it is ridiculous.


It insults both the intelligence of anyone over the age of about five, and it certainly insults Rosa Parks. Cindy Sheehan couldn't carry Rosa Parks' handbag to the front of the bus.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 11 months ago

by Arminius:

"McGovern also called Cindy Sheehan the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement. That's as insulting as it is ridiculous."

Arminius, I don't even let those sort of outlandish remarks bother me anymore.....my doc. has already increased my BP meds enough!! Libs can't help it....watch, Defender will scold me now for the "lib" word.

And McGovern, McGovern, hmmmm, as in George McGovern. I barely remember my Dad who was a COB on subs at the time nearly kicking the TV set over watching McGovern....not really, but he would still steam about what McGovern stood for three decades later.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 11 months ago

Arminius:

The United Nations sent Hans Blix of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (along with a survey team) to Iraq before the undeclared and illegal US-Iraq to find said weapons of mass destruction.

Hans Blix didn't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the War.

=====

"on October 6, 2004, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Charles Duelfer, announced to the United States Senate Armed Services Committee that the group found no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had produced and stockpiled any weapons of mass destruction since 1991, when UN sanctions were imposed."

Read all about it here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

======

The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Read about it here:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/ http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf

=====

Kevin, don't you think you have an obligation to take a rest from propaganda re: WMDs in Iraq??

Don't you think you have an obligation to buy advertising space at LJ World when you advertise your own website.

They might give you a deal.....since you used to work for them.

=======

Since you obviously don't give a s**t about the >2400 US soldiers who have died for a lie in an undeclared and illegal war, calling comparisons between Cindy Sheehan, who has lost a son serving in the military, and Rosa Parks "insulting" and "ridiculous" demonstrates how little respect you have for people who actually contribute to this country.

On the other hand, you do defend Rush Limbaugh.

Interesting dichotomy.

0

Arminius 7 years, 11 months ago

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst, during a question-and-answer session.

If McGovern truly believes it was a lie to say Iraq had WMD, didn't he have an obligation to say so before 2004? http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html

McGovern also called Cindy Sheehan the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement. That's as insulting as it is ridiculous.

0

mefirst 7 years, 11 months ago

That's why I loved Stephen Colbert's cutting speech last Friday. Bush had to sit there, SHUT-UP, and listen to his critique, smiling all the while.

Bush/Rumsfeld HATE democracy.

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 11 months ago

"kept far away from him at public events." Yeah, try that next November.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.